Is the Bible the Word of God?

Redstang did point out two possibilities, that "the evolutionist" is wrong and that the author is wrong. He never considered that the Bible might be wrong...

I doubt he could keep Hovind on the line. Besides Hovind isn't here debating us, you are. You brought it up, so it is your responsibility to defend your own views.I don't think anybody mentioned that ice would sublimate into space rather rapidly giving a beautiful comet-like effect around Earth, but since so many other lethal blows have been given to the "canopy theory" already this one really is only incidental.

[QUOTE][b]hahaha, it's easier picking on the littler guys huh?[/QUOTE][/b]If you can't run with us, you shouldn't be here. [QUOTE][b]I take it on faith. I think the Bible teaches it, so I believe it.[/QUOTE][/b]Then why do you trump around ridiculous constructs like ice canopies to make the Bible more palatible? If you had enough faith, you wouldn't need this ridiculous "Creation Science" in the first place. [QUOTE][b]So how do you know "ice would sublimate into space?"[/QUOTE][/b]You know what a comet is, correct? [QUOTE][b]It's up to you to defend your theory you know.[/QUOTE][/b]But it is your responsibility to have at least some basic science literacy. We can defend our theories all day, but if you don't even know enough elementary level science to understand us, it is not our fault and you can't blame that on us. [QUOTE][b]How many millions of theorys[/QUOTE][/b]Actually I don't know of "millions of theorys [SIC]" in the "story" of evolution (whatever that is). [QUOTE][b]in the story of evolution do you take on *pure* faith?[/QUOTE][/b]How one can have faith in evolution is beyond me. It's like having faith in gravity or having faith in atomic theory. They're not promises or covenants they are intellectual models of how the world works. [QUOTE][b]Did he have the fossil record to substantiat his claim? No... He took it on faith that we would discover intermediat fossils in the future, yet none have been found even til today.[/QUOTE][/b]This is exactly what I mean when I accuse you of not being literate in science. What you call "faith in intermediates" was Darwin's suggestion that we could determine if his theory was true through future discoveries in the field of paleontology. This is how science works, by proposing a testable hypothesis. [QUOTE][b]Unless you count the frauds, which you do count right?[/QUOTE][/b]Of course that's how Creationists respond to evidence in favor of evolution. Since their starting assumption is that the theory is false, they scream that any piece of evidence is a hoax, even when they can't substantiate the claim.Now, how can you say there are no transitionals when there is a high quality image of one on the homepage of this very site? [QUOTE][b]Need I mention Nebraska man?[/QUOTE][/b]And what did Creationists have to do with that? Nothing. Evolutionists discovered it was a hoax through the natural course of the scientific method. Science is self-correcting, frauds like that are discovered for what they are. Creationism has no such means of self correction.Need I mention the Sun Pictures Noah's Ark hoax? Leading Creationist organizations continued to push their hoaxed piece of Ark until the "finder" publicly announced how he had faked it, for the express purpose of exposing Creationist dishonesty.

[QUOTE][b]The answer is that as pressure drops the boiling point does as well so out in space in near perfect vacuum ice vapourises due to vapour pressure.....[/QUOTE][/b]Well you need sunlight too. Ice, when frozen solid enough and (even better) coated with a nice layer of dust can hang around for a while even in space. But when exposed to sunlight and solar wind it suddenly notices the vacuum and "poof". Comets are dark on the edges of the Solar System but when they get to about the orbit of Jupiter the vaporizing begins. Earth is way too close in for ice to be stable in sunlight nearby.

quote:

---

Wow, how come he didn't get fired as a teacher for 14 years?

---

Quality control is not one of the saving virtues of the US educational system.

[QUOTE][b]If you're so big and tough you should be able to call Hovind.[/QUOTE][/b]Why? You can't defend your own ideas? Here's an idea, you invest in your own long-distance service and call Hovind and ask him Ludvan's questions. [QUOTE][b]I was explaining what the Bible said the firmament was, I didn't say I could scientifically prove there ever was a canopy. Duh...[/QUOTE][/b]LOL, Duuuuuuhhhhh [QUOTE][b]Are you afriad of my questions? If I'm so below your level why do you even bother replying? [/QUOTE][/b]Good question. There doesn't seem to be much material in your responses anymore. [QUOTE][b]But if you are speaking of molecules to man evolution, then you are speaking on pure unsubstantiated conjector in which the fossil record does not support.[/QUOTE][/b]And yet the best you can do is claim that all transitional fossils ever found are hoaxes. Like the aluminum-foil-clad paranoid conspiracy theorist who is convinced that the world is out to get him, you believe that anything that rains on your worldview is automatically a hoax to mislead you. Yet you have no evidence and continue to rant accusations. That road leads not to victory in a debate, it leads to nuthouse. [QUOTE][b]Something that has failed, yet people still have "faith" in it.[/QUOTE][/b]Yet you cannot show it has failed, you simply believe it has and you have consistently failed to substantiate your point. [QUOTE][b]Let me ask you this, if one transitional fossil has been proven to be a hoax to what reason do we have to believe any of them? [/QUOTE][/b]Because more transitionals are being found and there is no evidence that they are hoaxes. Just because you might find a three legged cat does not mean all cats have three legs, and the reasoning you are using here is unfounded and ridiculous. [QUOTE][b]How do we know they aren't hoaxes that just haven't been uncovered yet?[/QUOTE][/b]Because the few instances of hoaxes were found in a matter of a couple of years or less for one. Why would we believe that all transitionals are hoaxes? There is only one possible reason for that, and that is to try to find some way, any way we can, to claim that evolution is wrong.[QUOTES][b]Are you convinced of it's true nature?[/QUOTE][/b]Unless you can show it is a hoax, is there any reason to think it is? Other than, "Because evolution is wrong!!!" or some similarly weak attempt? [QUOTE][b]How do we known any transitional fossil won't be proven later to be a hoax?[/QUOTE][/b]Again, what makes us think they are a hoax, other than your unfounded belief that evolution is wrong?How do we know, for that matter, that gravity won't suddenly reverse directions tomorrow? [QUOTE][b]I doubt the creationist intentionally lied about it.[/QUOTE][/b]He took a railroad tie and baked it, then immersed it in a sauce frequently used in Asian cooking, then invented a story about finding it on a mountainside in the Middle East. After Sun Pictures put it on TV, he issued a statement explaining in detail about where he got the fragment, how he prepared it, and how he created the story around it.Now, does it sound like he intentionally lied about it? Will you believe in anything that you think supports your position?

[QUOTE][b]So for 15 years the students never asked him any technical science questions?[/QUOTE][/b]If they did, he probably just responded with babble.

[QUOTE]I was just explaning what firmament was. I don't have to justify my beliefs to Ludvan.[QUOTE] But the firmament would sublimate away in a few months. Besides, if God wanted to He would probably use a material that doesn't sublimate. Like glass. [QUOTE][b]Scientist have created fraudulant fossils in the past, so I have no reason to trust them now.[/QUOTE][/b]The few frauds there have been were rapidly discredited and those that perpetrated them had their careers destroyed. You're forgetting that all important new finds are subjected to intense scrutiny by other scientists, many of whom would like to make names for themselves by blowing other scientists' ideas out of the water. [QUOTE][b]Because of the high demand for scientist to find transitionally fossils. As soon as one is found the scientist is instantly famous. It's like the temptation for athletes to take steroids.[/QUOTE][/b]But these finds are always subjected to scrutiny before one's peers. Once that fossil comes to light it is in the open for anyone to study, not hidden away from the peering eyes of other scientists, including rivals. Remember what happened to Nebraska man? [QUOTE][b]I guess it could if God wanted it to.[/QUOTE][/b]But going around being afraid of it suddenly happening with no warning doesn't make any sense. [QUOTE][b]He was probably an under cover evolutionist[/QUOTE][/b]He made the Creationists look bad enough. After all, they never detected the fraud, he announced it.

[QUOTE][b]I did some investigating on the canopy theory. It turns out it could have been vapor, or ice.[/QUOTE][/b]Vapor would have been stripped away by the solar wind. [QUOTE][b]But,if you think ice can not be suspended in space around a planet, you're wrong.[/QUOTE][/b]I didn't say "ice cannot be suspended around a planet" I said ice cannot be suspended around Earth.Note that in a prior post I mentioned that comets start to sublimate about the time they cross Jupiter's orbit. Jupiters's orbit just happens to be very near the limit of solar exposure intense enough to cause appreciable sublimation of ice. Note also that the ice particles comprising Jupiter's ring are surrounded by dust. I have also mentioned the effects of a coating of dust on ice.Finally, note that Jupiter is much farther from the Sun than Earth. At 2:34 PM CST today Earth was 0.99 AU from the Sun. Jupiter was 5.19 AU from the Sun. And if I remember correctly, the intensity of light from a source decreases as the inverse of the square of the distance from that source. That would make the solar radiation exposure of an ice particle orbiting Jupiter right now 1/25 that of one of the same size orbiting Earth now. By they way, the range to the Sun and Jupiter-Sun are provided by heavens-above.com

​

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-07-2002]

[QUOTE][b]If it was ice it would sublimate away in a few months? Well how thick was it if it was ice?[/QUOTE][/b]Not very thick apparently because water blocks so much light. Note that ice is denser than water and that 30 ft of water effectively removes the red portions of the solar spectrum that plants require for photosynthesis. 30 ft of ice would probably leave far less light than water. How long would a layer of 30 ft of ice last around the orbit? Not terribly long would be my answer. Probably six months would be my guess. Maybe as astronomers continue to study comets we can get a better answer.Also we're assuming that this ice is perfectly clear. When sublimation starts it will not be happening evenly across the surface of the canopy and the result will be a thick layer of frost that blocks all light. [QUOTE][b]Saturn's rings have ice.[/QUOTE][/b]Saturn is nine times further from the Sun than Earth. Ice orbiting Saturn would recieve 1/81 or 1.2% of the amount of solar energy the same particle would receive orbiting Earth. [QUOTE][b]And what did the evolutionist community think of the claim before it was announced a fraud?[/QUOTE][/b]Sun Pictures' claim? They probably laughed and went about their business.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-07-2002]

[QUOTE][b]We were addressing the question on whether or not ice could be suspended around a planet, right?[/QUOTE][/b]No, we are addressing how long ice could orbit Earth.

[QUOTE][b]Actually ice is one of the few solids that is less dense than its liquid state...[/QUOTE][/b]Ouch...sorry about that. I forgot.

[QUOTE][b]LUD: Indeed we can do those things today but we cant see planets like neptune,uranus and pluto with the naked eye...[/QUOTE][/b]Uranus is barely visible to the unaided eye (presently mag 5.9, with typical good unaided eye limit being mag 6.0, and the lower the number the brighter the object) and was charted as a star on an early sky atlas years before its discovery. Neptune can be seen with binoculars but for both planets one must know exactly where to look. I have identified neither but haven't made a major effort. Of course, I'm just being a gadfly for technical correctness.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-08-2002]

[QUOTE][b]I know it's not orbiting mercury, but my point is normally we would think ice could not possibly exist on mercury with it being so close to the sun.[/QUOTE][/b]Note that I'm losing patience here. You might have noticed that the supposed ice on Mercury would only exist in polar craters where it is never exposed to light. How many posts have I spent explaining the necessity of light for ice to sublimate into space?

[QUOTE][b]Who's to say the universe acted exactly the same before the flood as it does now?[/QUOTE][/b]Who's to say it didn't? Is there any evidence that it did not? Another Creationist fantasy they create -- entirely different laws of physics -- just so they can have ice in Earth orbit. And why do they need the ice? So they can have a flood, for which there is no evidence, of course. Wouldn't it just be easier for them to say that a bunch of aliens or toothfairies or something just trucked it in to play a practical joke on evolutionists?